Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Charles Robinson v. Latoya Hughes, et al
as 24-1519
Plaintiff:
CHARLES MOHAMED ROBINSON, also known as Charles D. Robinson
Defendant:
LATOYA HUGHES, DISTRICT ONE PAROLE RE-ENTRY GROUP DEPUTY CHIEF, DISTRICT ONE PAROLE RE-ENTRY GROUP SUPERVISOR and others
Charles Robinson v. Jane Doe, et al
as 21-3229
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHARLES MOHAMED ROBINSON
Defendant / Appellee:
JANE DOE, Nurse, DIXON CORRECTIONAL CENTER, LARRY J. WILKS and others
Robinson v. Prentice et al
as 1:2015cv01374
Plaintiff:
Charles Mohamed Robinson
Defendant:
Mason K Prentice, Travis Sullivan, Jacob Pyles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Charles Robinson v. Randy Pfister, et al
as 14-1325
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHARLES MOHAMED ROBINSON
Defendant - Appellee:
RANDY PFISTER, Warden, Chief Admin. Officer, JACOB LILES, Officer, TIMOTHY PRICE, Illinois State Policeman and others
Robinson v. Pfister et al
as 1:2013cv01585
Plaintiff:
Charles Mohamed Robinson
Defendant:
Randy Pfister, Major Johnson, Glendal French and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Robinson v. Zook et al
as 1:2013cv01340
Plaintiff:
Charles Mohamed Robinson
Defendant:
J D Zook, T Sullivan, T Price and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. Spencer et al
as 1:2013cv01209
Plaintiff:
Charles Mohamed Robinson
Defendant:
Mark Spencer, Kathleen Sandlin, . Creech and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. Mathy
as 1:2009cv01273
Petitioner:
Charles Mohamed Robinson
Respondent:
Joseph V Mathy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Robinson v. Joseph et al
as 1:2008cv01326
Plaintiff:
Charles Mohamed Robinson
Defendant:
Mathy V Joseph and Pontiac North Seg Unit
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Robinson v. Mathy et al
as 1:2008cv01270
Petitioner:
Charles Mohamed Robinson
Respondent:
Joseph V Mathy and Pontiac North Seg Unit
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
